ART + LAW
elry, rugs, kachina dolls, ceramics, and other
legally collected items. If they were returned,
what would tribes do with them?
American museums and private collections
are threatened by this unwise legislation, as
are contemporary artisans. Consumer confusion
Native artisans and hurt communities that
benefit from cultural tourism.
130
FIGS. 3a & b (left): Crucifi x
inscribed and dated
1813. Iroquois, Eastern
Woodlands. 1813 or earlier.
Wood. H: 13.5 cm (reproduced
actual size).
Private collection.
Photos: Alex Arthur.
Though clearly intended for use
within a non-Native religious
context (likely among the Oneida
and Onondaga in western New
York), such objects could be subject
to repatriation if STOP II were to
pass.
FIG. 4 (right): Mask.
Teotihuacan,
Mexico. AD 450–650.
Calcite. H: 19 cm.
Ex Roberto Donis.
Private collection.
Photo: Alex Arthur.
Though in Europe for many
years, proposed European legislation
could require a retroactively
issued export certifi cate in
order for this mask to be sold.
Given Mexico’s contentiousness
regarding ownership of any of
its antiquities outside its borders
regardless of the circumsances,
obtaining such a document
would be nearly impossible.
is unlawful, and a customs law, 18 U.S.C. §
554, already prohibits export of any object
contrary to any U.S. law or regulation, and
it imposes a tougher penalty than STOP II. If
that is made clear to legislators, this harmful
legislation may be abandoned.
UNFOUNDED ESTIMATES OF ILLEGAL
TRADE SPUR NEW EU REGULATIONS
European Union offi cials have proposed regulations
that, if passed, will impact all EU countries
in 2018, requiring importers to show
proof of legal export for “cultural goods” more
than 250 years old. Under the Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the import of cultural goods,
13.7.2017, “cultural goods” are any objects
that are “of importance for archaeology, prehistory,
history, literature, art, or science.” Very
little art of that age has documentation of legal
export, either because it has passed through
many hands or because art-source countries
have passed laws forbidding export but neither
enforced them nor established legal export systems.
Although the regulations’ goal is to end trade
in illicit artifacts said to be fi nancing terrorism,
the EU already prohibits imports from Iraq
and Syria. Further, there is no evidence that the
art market is connected to ISIS. An eighteencountry
investigation in 2016, “Operation
Pandora,” was designed to fi nd artifacts from
war zones in Europe markets, but after 40,000
searches turned up nothing war-related.
The new rules would be especially burdensome
for a protected category that includes archaeological
objects, parts of monuments, and
old manuscripts and books. Importers “should
be able to prove licit export from the source
country with the appropriate supportive documents
and evidence … export certifi cates or
licenses issued by the third country of export,
ownership titles, invoices, sales contracts, insurance
documents, transport documents, or
experts appraisals.” §10. A license from the exporting
country may be suffi cient if the country
has signed the 1970 UNESCO Convention.2
If not, then the importer must prove that the
cultural good was legally imported from the
source country.
could seriously damage the incomes of
STOP II’s federalized returns program will
discourage participation by private collectors
and create a massive bureaucracy involving
the Departments of Justice, State, Interior,
and Homeland Security. STOP II also
gives Customs wide, unspecified authority to
create regulations, a practice that has led to
due process abuses in the past.
The best reason to oppose STOP II is that
it is redundant. “Trafficking” in violation of
the existing NAGPRA or ARPA legislation